The Existence of Mental Illness - Essay Example

Running Head: Mental Illness Mental Illness [Institute’s Mental Illness Since few decades, a huge number of psychologists, researchers, and scientists have been putting efforts to explain and prove the existence of mental illness psychologically, medically, or scientifically. It is an observation that a need to alter public perception regarding mental illness was the fundamental notion of inspiration that motivated such experts to define mental illness like other diseases, as public were taking people with mental illness as ill-fated that deserve hatred. In this regard, in order to alter public perception, few prominent experts claim that mental illness is nothing but a brain disorder like other illnesses, and there are no causes of mental illness such as ill-fated or bad deeds in the past/previous life. Analysis of the material (Corrigan & Watson, pp. 162-179, 2003) related to mental illness has indicated that mental illness has now become a usual notion in contemporary era, and most of the studies have specified that mental illness does not have a physical existence, and thus, it always required support of a theory or concept for its justification. For instance, during ancient and medieval periods, and even today in some parts of the globe, people relate magic, fate, witches, and unseen forces as causes of mental illness. Such perspective has increased the efforts of organizations and experts (Corrigan & Watson, pp. 162-179, 2003) to claim that mental illness is a brain disorder and that people with mental illness should acquire treatment accordingly rather than confront detestation, isolation, and magical interventions. Further analysis has indicated that experts (Farmer, pp. 40-46, 2001) have related intoxication of brain, and particularly, syphilis of brain as the major cause of mental illness in humans. Although very few experts (Stein, pp. 37-41, 2004) have accepted this notion, however, introduction of recent technologies in medical science has resulted in efforts made to prove such intoxications. In psychology, experts (Nestler, pp. 61-68, 2008) believe that abovementioned intoxications enforce patients to confront certain disorders in their thinking patterns that justify the unpredictable behavior of people confronting mental illness. In addition, experts have indicated that usually all types of brain disorders cause alterations in thinking and behavior patterns similar to mental illness, and thus, mental illness is a brain disorder that has been able to influence an enormous number of experts and psychologists globally. On the other hand, adversaries (Corrigan & Watson, pp. 162-179, 2003) of this school of thought have argued that such perspective leads to a pessimistic approach that human beings cannot express their tribulations, and if expressed, will be consider as mental illness or a brain disorder. Such adversaries believe that medical science should not try to relate every problem of this world with scientific processes, and should not try to prove it with medical advancements, and humans can resolve their problems even without the scientific interventions. However, advocates (Bear, pp. 20-25, 2007) of the mentioned claim, in response, argued that mental illnesses are no different from the other bodily illnesses, and the only distinctive factor is effect, as mental illness only results in the mental symptoms, whereas, bodily illnesses cause symptoms visible on different parts of the body. In this regard, people confronting mental illness should acquire treatments accordingly. Conversely, adversary school of thought (Brockington & Murphy, pp. 93-99, 1993) has identified few blunders in this claim that it should get treatment accordingly. They have argued that every disorder of brain sends some messages to different organs of the body that results in blindness, paralysis, etc rather than only emotional or behavioral complexity. In brief, the bottom line of this argument is that a brain disorder is a neurological defect that inclines human organs to confront adverse effects. On the other hand, mental illness represents the incapacity of an individual to face problems of the life, and thus, it is very imperative that experts (Brockington & Murphy, pp. 93-99, 1993) should reject this claim, as there is nothing such as mental illness, and if there is, it is not a brain disorder. Experts of this school of thought use the example that as medical science cannot explain religious belief of an individual that inclines him to think that his inner body is dead. Similarly, medical experts should not put efforts to explain the mental illness in relation with the nervous system. In medical science, practitioners (Morey, pp. 93-94, 2007) explain physical disorders with the help of signs and symptoms, such as fever, pain, etc. Conversely, mental symptoms relate to patient’s representation of his thoughts about his own life, people around him, and his environment. For instance, a practitioner will identify a physical disorder by locating pain or measuring fever; on the other hand, practitioner’s observations are the only tool to identify mental symptoms. For example, a patient may consider himself Michael Jackson or shout for help to get out of the prison. At this moment, observations will determine the extent of mental illness of a patient. This implies that unlike physical illness, mental illness requires interpretation that can be different among different individuals. From this perspective, it is possible that a traditional ritual of an African American living in the jungle will be a mental illness for a practitioner from the United Kingdom. Thus, it will not be wrong to state that mental illness relates with social existence of concepts and perspectives, and thus, it will be unethical to narrow it down as only a neurological defect. In brief, to regard mental illness as a brain disorder is superfluous and can lead to ambiguous and confusing outcomes. Although it is true that medical science has advanced enormously and can identify radical changes in the brain of mental patients, however, one should not contract the coverage of understanding of mental illness to only brain disorder that will result in a number of limitations, and may increase suffering for the patients as well. As mentioned earlier that need of altering public perspectives about people confronting mental illness was the major objective of claiming mental illness as a brain disorder, it is an observation that besides flaws and limitations of treating mental illness scientifically or neurologically, the statement or claim poses sociological importance as well. Thus, some experts (Roleff, pp. 56-63, 2000) believe that this claim is fruitful and constructive, if limited for its utilization for only theoretical purposes rather than intervening functions. Even today in this era of information technology and globalization, people have the worldview that individuals suffering from mental illness would have done something very awful in their past lives or their parents would have done something similar. Regrettably, some people relate lack of character and existence of immoral past with the existence of mental illness. In this regard, a huge number of people (Roleff, pp. 56-63, 2000) believe that suffering victims are responsible for their mental situation and disabilities that is an unfortunate worldview and needs education and awareness regarding it. For such purpose, experts claimed that mental illness is a brain disorder and can happen to anyone regardless of their character and deeds, and there is no connection at all with past lives of individuals. Such sociological utilization is one of the major factors that resulted in the claim that has been the reason of this discussion. In this regard, experts believed that providing awareness to the people regarding the neurological existence of mental illness would reduce the unethical practice of blaming mentally ill patients. Interestingly, such claim has resulted in alteration in public perspectives in educated societies that are now treating such individuals with great care and concern, rather than avoiding them that was a usual practice in the past before existence of this claim. However, besides limitations of scientific implementation, this claim has some drawbacks as well. After claiming it as a brain disorder, it is a practice that public anticipates usual list of signs and symptoms that is not available in the case of mental illness, which results in ambiguities and create different schools of thought regarding this issue. Moreover, besides investigating causes and risk factors of mental illness, due to this claim, it has resulted in the development of expectations of family members of the patients, as if it is a brain disorder, it is likely that it will get treatment and individual can come back to a normal life (Walmann, pp. 23-25, 2003). However, until now, no technological advancement or medical treatment has been able to ensure successful treatment of mental disorder, which may lead to worsened perspectives about this issue that is affecting millions of people around the globe. In the result, due to this claim and most importantly, due to its ambiguous nature, mental illness has now become a combination of shame and suffering that brings isolation and at the same time, care from the educated population (Morey, pp. 71-77, 2007). In this regard, there is no assurance that medical science or psychology will be able to acquire successful treatment of mental illness in few years or even decades. Moreover, medical or neurological explanations would make matters even worse and may aggravate people to behave more harshly with the people suffering from mental illness. Thus, it is advisable that organizations and individuals should continue putting efforts to provide awareness and education to the people that are still under the perspective that mental illness is the outcome of ill fate or awful past lives (Ralph, pp. 29-43, 2000). Conclusively, the paper has discussed some of the significant aspects of the claim that mental illness is a brain order and that it should get treatment accordingly. It is an expectation that the paper will be beneficial for students, teachers, and professionals in better understanding of the topic. References Bear, Mark F. (2007). Neuroscience. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Nestler, Jonathan. (2008). Neurobiology of Mental Illness. Oxford University Press. Stein, Phyllis T. (2004). Psychological Trauma and the Developing Brain. Routledge. Farmer, Suzette. (2001). Mental Health & Mental Illness. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Brockington, I., Hall, P., & Murphy, C. (1993). "The communitys tolerance of the mentally ill." British Journal of Psychiatry. Volume 162, pp. 93-99. Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2003). "An attribution model of public discrimination toward persons with mental illness." Journal of Health and Social Behavior. Volume 44, pp. 162-179. Ralph, R. (2000). "Recovery." Psychiatric Rehabilitation Skills. Volume 4, pp. 480-517. Morey, Bodie. (2007). the Family Intervention Guide to Mental Illness. New Harbinger Publications. Thompson, Marie L. (2006). Mental Illness. Greenwood Publishing Group. Roleff, Tamara L. (2000). Mental Illness: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press. Walmann, Irving G. (2003). Mental Illness: Can it be Cured? Prevented? Alma Publications. Read More